Talk:Mitford Crowe/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 18:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I will take this review. Initial impressions good. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Article is stable and neutral. Citations from reliable sources are comprehensively provided, with no plagiarism or original research. Images are used well. The prose is clear and correct, and the Manual of Style is complied with. Edits to minor issues have been made. This article is worthy of Good Article status. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Article is stable and neutral. Citations from reliable sources are comprehensively provided, with no plagiarism or original research. Images are used well. The prose is clear and correct, and the Manual of Style is complied with. Edits to minor issues have been made. This article is worthy of Good Article status. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Article is stable and neutral. Citations from reliable sources are comprehensively provided, with no plagiarism or original research. Images are used well. The prose is clear and correct, and the Manual of Style is complied with. Edits to minor issues have been made. This article is worthy of Good Article status. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Article is stable and neutral. Citations from reliable sources are comprehensively provided, with no plagiarism or original research. Images are used well. The prose is clear and correct, and the Manual of Style is complied with. Edits to minor issues have been made. This article is worthy of Good Article status. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)